Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Da Costa v Jones (1778) 2 Cowp 729; HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank Rix LJ stated, "I am conscious that in Carter v. Boehm itself Lord Mansfield does seem to have considered that there was a difference between the concealment which the duty of good faith prohibited and mere silence (‘Aliud est celare; aliud ...
Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn)
Uberrima fides (sometimes seen in its genitive form uberrimae fidei) is a Latin phrase meaning "utmost good faith" (literally, "most abundant faith").It is the name of a legal doctrine which governs insurance contracts.
The concept of good faith was established in the insurance industry following the events of Carter v Boehm (1766), and is enshrined in the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (ICA). [26] The act stipulates, in Section 13, obligations of all parties within a contract to act with utmost good faith.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts.The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
General Motors was ordered by a federal appeals court to face a class action claiming it violated laws of 26 U.S. states by knowingly selling several hundred thousand cars, trucks and SUVs with ...
James defined what affirmative action is in its most basic form. "(It) is a policy that encourages state institutions to take affirmative action to make sure their processes are fair," she explains.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]